Taber man charged with assault for protecting his wife/home

[CaptainCrunch]

Thats it, I'm training a bear.

[valo403]

Originally Posted by puckluck

If I was smart enough to reform the Canadian justice system do you think I'd be browsing CP during the day?

Again, you present a weak argument. Like when you criticize an NHL'er and someone tells you "I don't see you playing in the NHL"

Actually, that comparison would make sense if I said well I don't see you on the Supreme Court. As it is I asked you to present ideas on what can be changed and why. It's actually a pretty easy question, you think the system is a joke, you explain why, you then present ways for it to not be a joke. I'd have thought that you would have already had some of those ideas in your head since you've already come to the conclusion that the system is a joke.

I don't think the system is perfect, far from it, but it's pretty darn good and outshines the vast majority of legal systems in the world.

[SeeBass]

If somebody is a danger to my family then all bets are off.

But if somebody has broken into my home and is trying to flee then I will let them.

If everybody starts to take justice into their own hands there are two things that could happen

-less people will break into homes as it is dangerous for them. I dont think that is working in countries that allow violent defense of your home but I could be wrong

-or criminals will still break into homes but they expect a fight and come armed. I can only see a higher body count in this regard of innocent people and criminals.

[puckluck]

Originally Posted by valo403

Actually, that comparison would make sense if I said well I don't see you on the Supreme Court. As it is I asked you to present ideas on what can be changed and why. It's actually a pretty easy question, you think the system is a joke, you explain why, you then present ways for it to not be a joke. I'd have thought that you would have already had some of those ideas in your head since you've already come to the conclusion that the system is a joke.

I don't think the system is perfect, far from it, but it's pretty darn good and outshines the vast majority of legal systems in the world.

I don't think it's a joke compared to the rest of the world because obviously it looks great if you live in the Middle East or somewhere along those lines.

But America IMO(I know people will disagree) has a great justice system where criminals are actually punished harshly not given weak 3 year sentences for assault with a weapon instead of attempted murder. I'd like to see harsher sentences for people who attempt to injure or kill someone. It's almost impossible in Canada to be charged and convicted of attempted murder.

[valo403]

Originally Posted by puckluck

I don't think it's a joke compared to the rest of the world because obviously it looks great if you live in the Middle East or somewhere along those lines.

But America IMO(I know people will disagree) has a great justice system where criminals are actually punished harshly not given weak 3 year sentences for assault with a weapon instead of attempted murder. I'd like to see harsher sentences for people who attempt to injure or kill someone. It's almost impossible in Canada to be charged and convicted of attempted murder.

America. Pretty much expected that. That's a pretty broad statement for one, seeing as you're essentially dealing with 50 sets of laws that may vary greatly from State to State. Secondly, the numbers make it quite clear that the US approach to justice has not resulted in a decrease in violent crime. Interestingly enough, it also seems that many of the States that have a sort of frontier justice mentality are also home to some of the highest per capita violent crime rates in the country.

[RandyHolt]

Originally Posted by valo403

Actually, that comparison would make sense if I said well I don't see you on the Supreme Court. As it is I asked you to present ideas on what can be changed and why. It's actually a pretty easy question, you think the system is a joke, you explain why, you then present ways for it to not be a joke. I'd have thought that you would have already had some of those ideas in your head since you've already come to the conclusion that the system is a joke.

I don't think the system is perfect, far from it, but it's pretty darn good and outshines the vast majority of legal systems in the world.

I know you didn't ask me, but the first thing that our justice system needs in my opinion is to get rid of concurrent sentencing. I’ve never understood how killing one person and killing three people can land you at the exact same sentence.

Maybe you know how we ended up giving concurrent sentences as the standard (hopefully not just due to the cost of keeping criminals in jail).

[puckluck]

Originally Posted by valo403

America. Pretty much expected that. That's a pretty broad statement for one, seeing as you're essentially dealing with 50 sets of laws that may vary greatly from State to State. Secondly, the numbers make it quite clear that the US approach to justice has not resulted in a decrease in violent crime. Interestingly enough, it also seems that many of the States that have a sort of frontier justice mentality are also home to some of the highest per capita violent crime rates in the country.

American high crime rate and the justice system really dont have any correlation. IMO there is high crime because it's pretty much a third world country in a lot of areas. The Mexicans sure don't help either. Poor Black areas sure don't help as well.

Why would anyone think that the crime rate would go down because of more lenient laws? Because I sure don't. I just want to see Canadian criminals actually serve real time for their crimes.

Remember Jackie Tran? What about Vuthy Kong? the guy who put a steak knife deep into someones back and killed him and got away with 7 years for MANSLAUGHTER. Got out and was re-arrested for drugs and only got 90 days.

If that's not a joke I don't know what is. No matter what other country you look at.

[Redliner]

I have a cousin who is in law enforcement and he has flat out told me that with the way the legal system works you are better off to kill someone who breaks into your home than simply injure them. That way even though charges will be laid, you can claim self defense and there is no other firsthand witness to dispute your story, which means that you will most likely be acquitted. I think it's pretty sad when our legal system would put someone in that position.

Honestly, the whole situation is completely backwards. It's the same as when that guy got shot by the cops in the SE a few years ago after he stabbed the officer in the shoulder. If you don't want to get shot, don't attack a cop. If you don't want to take the back end of hatchet in the face, don't break into someone else's house. Yes, this guy probably did heighten the risk of confrontation by parking behind the burglar's vehicle, but keep in mind this person has more of a rural, self-sufficient mentality that people who have lived in a city their whole lives may not understand. When you live out in the country and you have a problem, you deal with it instead of waiting for someone to do it for you. Some may not agree with that approach, but that's the way they are. Personally, I think the house-robbing punk got what he deserved.

As far as excessive force goes, the guy probably reacted quickly and grabbed the first weapon he found. It would have been excessive if he had used the business end of the hatchet, but he had the restraint to turn the thing around. If someone was on my property and I even thought there was a possibility they could harm me or a member of my family, I would not think twice about acting exactly the same way this man did; legal consequences be damned.

[cal_guy]

Originally Posted by puckluck

But America IMO(I know people will disagree) has a great justice system where criminals are actually punished harshly not given weak 3 year sentences for assault with a weapon instead of attempted murder. I'd like to see harsher sentences for people who attempt to injure or kill someone. It's almost impossible in Canada to be charged and convicted of attempted murder.

So this guy should be charged with with attempted murder rather than assault. And if you think that this wouldn't happen in America remember that in many states the chief regional prosecutor are elected so keeping the street safe from axe wielding murderers would be good for the prosecutor.

I'll also leave you with this tidbit.

IN 2000 four Americans were charged with importing lobster tails in plastic bags rather than cardboard boxes, in violation of a Honduran regulation that Honduras no longer enforces. They had fallen foul of the Lacey Act, which bars Americans from breaking foreign rules when hunting or fishing. The original intent was to prevent Americans from, say, poaching elephants in Kenya. But it has been interpreted to mean that they must abide by every footling wildlife regulation on Earth. The lobstermen had no idea they were breaking the law. Yet three of them got eight years apiece. Two are still in jail.

http://www.economist.com/node/16640389

[SeeBass]

I guess I would hate to think that I tried to stop a robber and my wife got killed in the struggle and the guy ends up getting away with a DVD player.

Did stopping the guy from taking my DVD equal the death of somebody I cared for

[Shnabdabber]

nm

[Rathji]

Originally Posted by puckluck

American high crime rate and the justice system really dont have any correlation. IMO there is high crime because it's pretty much a third world country in a lot of areas. The Mexicans sure don't help either. Poor Black areas sure don't help as well.

Why would anyone think that the crime rate would go down because of more lenient laws? Because I sure don't. I just want to see Canadian criminals actually serve real time for their crimes.

Remember Jackie Tran? What about Vuthy Kong? the guy who put a steak knife deep into someones back and killed him and got away with 7 years for MANSLAUGHTER. Got out and was re-arrested for drugs and only got 90 days.

If that's not a joke I don't know what is. No matter what other country you look at.

So you think that crime is caused by low income and other external lifestyle factors yet think that a harsher punishment will dissuade someone from committing a crime? Crime caused by external factors is best dealt with by programs that deal with resolving those factors. Things like community programs, shame based sentencing (Google Aboriginal Sentencing Circles for an example of this).

A deterrent based system, such as one that typically advocates harsher punishments for crimes doesn't reduce the criminal mindset for these people because they often feel they don't have a choice. This type of system, such as the American system, and the Canadian system in the 70s have shown that they might slightly decrease crime of people who would be first time offenders, but drastically increase the rates of re offending for almost everyone who has been through the system. There is a reason that Canada has moved away from this model, with a reduction in crime rates, and it is because it really doesn't work as well as people like to think it does.

[Pinner]

Rathji, your funny

[Rathji]

Originally Posted by Pinner

Rathji, your funny

But looks are not everything.

So let me get this straight:

You pull up to your house and there in your driveway is an unknown car and there's lights on in the house. You believe someone has broken in and is maybe inside. You tell your wife, "honey, hold on to your hat, 'cause i'm gonna go in there and lay a whippin on that boy in there... this is my house dammit, and it is my right to protect it". So you grab your axe and head in. Burglar now becomes the hunted and, as you swing your Paul Bunyonesque axe around periodically screaming out, "Yeeeee-haw", burglar bolts to his car to high tail it outta there. But, low and behold, you've blocked the "sonvab*tch" in. Then as he accelerates bashing into anything to get the heck out, you bash him in the teeth for good measure....

Fact of the matter is, that's a criminal offence. Sure, we can think of some sort of defence later on about the wifey being in danger, etc, etc but seriously... think this through.

Without establishing blame or determining causation (because in the end, does it really matter), does the decision to go in and confront this unknown intruder seem like a good one?

[puckluck]

Originally Posted by Rathji

So you think that crime is caused by low income and other external lifestyle factors yet think that a harsher punishment will dissuade someone from committing a crime? Crime caused by external factors is best dealt with by programs that deal with resolving those factors. Things like community programs, shame based sentencing (Google Aboriginal Sentencing Circles for an example of this).

A deterrent based system, such as one that typically advocates harsher punishments for crimes doesn't reduce the criminal mindset for these people because they often feel they don't have a choice. This type of system, such as the American system, and the Canadian system in the 70s have shown that they might slightly decrease crime of people who would be first time offenders, but drastically increase the rates of re offending for almost everyone who has been through the system. There is a reason that Canada has moved away from this model, with a reduction in crime rates, and it is because it really doesn't work as well as people like to think it does.

Are you kidding me? Did you not read the very next sentence where I said the opposite of what you accused me of?

[Rathji]

Originally Posted by puckluck

Are you kidding me? Did you not read the very next sentence where I said the opposite of what you accused me of?

I think you are misunderstanding what I said. I am not accusing you of anything. I read your whole post and am simply saying that your 2 opinions:

1) People commit crime because they are poor
and
2) People should receive stricter sentences when they commit a crime

sort of contradict each other because the solution your are suggesting to reduce crime in #2 doesn't work very well, if at all, on people in #1.

Let me say it another way:

Originally Posted by puckluck

American high crime rate and the justice system really dont have any correlation. IMO there is high crime because it's pretty much a third world country in a lot of areas. The Mexicans sure don't help either. Poor Black areas sure don't help as well.

You are saying that crime is high because of low income levels. I pointed out that the type of crime that exists become of poverty is typically not affected by deterrent based justice system (one that has harsher penalties). People who commit crimes because they do not have the ability to survive or who feel that there is no other option do not ususally consider the consequences, because simply, they have no other real choice.

Why would anyone think that the crime rate would go down because of more lenient laws? Because I sure don't. I just want to see Canadian criminals actually serve real time for their crimes.

The reality is, that reoffending rates have gone down in Canada since the shift from a punishment based system (in the 70s) to a more treatment or community based system. For example: this is especially true of young offenders. The transitions from the JDA to the YOA to our current YCJA have all increased the levels of 'treatment' and other community based programs for young people and removed a lot of barriers that existed for them to return to a normal life. There are many other examples, including aboriginal based justice systems were this has shown to prove true.

It doesn't mean it is the only option, but the option of increasing sentences and keeping people in jail for extended periods of time didn't really solve the problem either.

Remember Jackie Tran? What about Vuthy Kong? the guy who put a steak knife deep into someones back and killed him and got away with 7 years for MANSLAUGHTER. Got out and was re-arrested for drugs and only got 90 days.

If that's not a joke I don't know what is. No matter what other country you look at.

Sure, those cases are a joke. Like pretty much everyone else in the world I am against people being murdered. I don't think murderers should go free but I also think if everyone who commits a violent offense was locked up for the rest of their lives, we would need way more jails and our tax bill would more than double to pay for it. Given the studies that have shown that it really isn't needed and that you cannot 100% predict who exactly will re-offend, it really doesn't make a lot of sense to go through that expense.

There are obviously many examples of people re-offending after they were released. One side of the coin says there is certainly a strong case for more making it easier to designate someone a dangerous offender so they don't get out early. I think this idea certainly has merit, however giving someone this label pretty much destroys the rest of their life so it needs to be a measured response, and not just something thrown out at random when a crime if committed.

The other side of the coin says that increased risk of re-offending after being released from prison is a result of our prison system, since as I pointed out earlier, people who go to prison tend to commit more crimes after being released (or while still incarcerated) due to the environment they are in. I know it is just a movie, but it is based on a true story, Murder in the First as it is a perfect example of this kind of thing. Guy goes to jail for stealing 5 bucks, ends up going crazy and killing a guy because of the jail conditions he was kept in. It is a very extreme example to be sure, but it is one of the reasons that Alcatraz was shut down.

[nickerjones]

I read this thread, and then saw this on a local news site.
http://newsok.com/woman-calls-911-af...o/650920427001


This is the 911 call of a lady here in Oklahoma who shot a guy and killed him on her property. Its just weird to hear her voice. Like she doesnt even care that she just shot and killed someone.

[transplant99]

Originally Posted by valo403

Explain it to me then, because it's going to take some pretty elaborate tales to convince me that my family would be just as safe in a situation where there is a direct confrontation as it would be if there was no confrontation.

Looking forward to this one.

How about the very story we are discussing??

The guy didnt know anyone was there...he went through his house and found no one until he came back outside. He first saw the scumbag sitting in the car and trying to escape. If his whole intention was confrontation, he would have just stayed in the safety of his own vehicle and waited for the criminal(s) to come out.

I think he did what any reasonable person would do, phone the police, grab something for protection when it appears someone may be around, check your house to see what has happened, then head back outside to be with your family. When confronted with the actual criminal in this situation and the guy is trying to ram his way out but is a threat to your wife, you drill him in the face, twice, to try and stop him from a) hurting anyone AND b) escaping from law enforcement. He is on a farm out in the country, so I have zero idea what it is that you reasonably expect someone to do. Its not like the poilice were parked around the corner eating donuts.

And again, if the guy wanted nothing but to "mete out prarie justice" he could have followed the scumbag and caught him when the putz got caught up in some barbed wire, and then really laid the boots to him. he did none of that kind of thing.

The Crown has advised to lay charges, which is abhorent to me. The guy did what any reasonable person would do, and now will have to defend himself in court for it, costing him both monetarily and emotionally I would guess.

I think the guy is a friggin hero, and anyone who thinks the government in this case is correct should give their heads a shake. Put yourself in his shoes then tell me that he has earned the priviledge of being charged with a worse crime than the guy who's fault this is...the criminal.

Ridiculous? yes. Elaborate tale? No.

[pylon]

Originally Posted by valo403

Well let's here your plan to reform the justice system, or better yet, let's see you provide an example of a system that Canada should be aspiring to resemble.

Everybody loves to type away with the 'it's a joke' junk but when it comes right down to it very few people ever come up with anything that amounts to more than 'more jail time', and those plans are never set in the relaities of the world we live in.

I agree with him, our system is a joke. You could throw out a million examples as of why. You know our whole system protecting and pardoning pedophiles, our lack of capital punishment, and the fact that hopped up drug addict can break into your house and threaten your wife and children, and you are not allowed to kill the guy.

The fact this man has to answer to the justice system for protecting his home is pathetic... but hey, all the lawyers out there must love it.. more work for them. The second that idiot makes the decision to enter my home, and threaten the safety of my family, he has given up his rights. I would shoot the guy on the spot, regardless of what our pussified justice system thinks of it. The problem with the Canadian justice system is it seems like it spends more time thinking of ways to protect the bad people not the victims.

What do we need to do to improve our justice system?

We need to strip criminals of all of their rights. You get convicted of serious violent or sexual crime, you have none until you serve your full sentence. If you get an early release, you still have no rights until your probation is done. You get no health care, government assistance, unemployment benefits, no right to vote, no access to credit. You are also labeled with some sort of marker to inform anyone who comes into contact with you of what a piece of garbage you are. You can merely exist, like a stray dog, and have the same rights as that dog.

We need to re-instate the death penalty. In murder cases where there is zero doubt, or an admission of guilt, off to the chamber you go.

We need to castrate child molesters on their first offenses. And I don't mean chemically, chop it all off. Female offenders should be sewn shut. Even though the libs out there might be disappointed, you know..... how they think child porn is art and all. And no segregation for diddlers any more. Off to general population you go, and when you show up, it is announced over the prison PA system who you are and what you did. Also a nice leaflet with a picture of you, your victim, and a description of your crimes, should be handed out to all of the other inmates.

White collar criminals need to be sent to regular prisons and put in general population. The guy that robs thousands of people of millions of dollars, is a more serious offender than some guy that robbed a 7-11. He should not get preferencial treatment.

I know I sound like a barbarian or something, but I could care less about sick violent criminals, and I have zero empathy for their condition. I know we live in a society that protects the rights of everyone, but I feel it has gone too far, and we are too forgiving as a society now.